The film “Hot Coffee” discusses the issue of tort reform. Tort reform aims to limit likelihood of lawsuits and therefore restricts individual’s right to go to court. In the film, directed by Susan Saladoff, four cases are presented that demonstrate how corporate America has utilized famous lawsuit settlements to swing public opinion against “frivolous” lawsuits, which is an expression commonly used regarding lawsuits against large companies, doctors and more. The film centers on the infamous McDonald's case (Liebeck v. McDonalds), where Stella Liebeck, 79, was awarded millions for spilling hot McDonald's coffee on herself. While it seems as though Liebeck would be at fault for this, since she physically spilled the coffee, the film thoroughly
…show more content…
Many people believe that they know the facts of the case, but after conducting multiple street interviews, the film makes clear that the information that is commonly known about this case is false. To test this ignorance further, I asked my friend and my father about the facts of the case, and both had completely different, but both false, information. Overall, it is evident that this was not a frivolous lawsuit, as Liebeck was forced to have multiple reconstructive surgeries due to the horrific burns she received. The jury assigned 20% fault to liebeck and 80% to McDonalds, largely because of their negligence and failure to respond to multiple complaints regarding their coffee temperature, which was found too hot for human consumption later in discovery. Liebeck was awarded a jury verdict of $2.7 million dollars, which would have been an ample amount to cover her extensive medical bills, however the Judge found this amount to be too large to serve as punitive damages, making her final reward reduced to $160,000 compensatory, $480,000 punitive. The most important thing to take away from this case is that it used primarily to demonstrate how pro tort-reform groups and government officials manipulate public opinion in order to protect corporate America, which reflects the gaps in our legal system that fail to preserve and protect
Many people believe that they know the facts of the case, but after conducting multiple street interviews, the film makes clear that the information that is commonly known about this case is false. To test this ignorance further, I asked my friend and my father about the facts of the case, and both had completely different, but both false, information. Overall, it is evident that this was not a frivolous lawsuit, as Liebeck was forced to have multiple reconstructive surgeries due to the horrific burns she received. The jury assigned 20% fault to liebeck and 80% to McDonalds, largely because of their negligence and failure to respond to multiple complaints regarding their coffee temperature, which was found too hot for human consumption later in discovery. Liebeck was awarded a jury verdict of $2.7 million dollars, which would have been an ample amount to cover her extensive medical bills, however the Judge found this amount to be too large to serve as punitive damages, making her final reward reduced to $160,000 compensatory, $480,000 punitive. The most important thing to take away from this case is that it used primarily to demonstrate how pro tort-reform groups and government officials manipulate public opinion in order to protect corporate America, which reflects the gaps in our legal system that fail to preserve and protect